Smart Economy

Happiness is U shaped; it peaks at 20 and 70, but slumps in the middle; resumes at fifty 08-037

It's official: happiness resumes at 50

Stephen Moss Wednein The Guardian writes:

'The first 40 years of life is text, the rest is commentary," wrote Schopenhauer.  Setting the watershed as low as 40 is arguable, but Schopenhauer surely had a point, and it may help to explain the results of a new survey that puts our most depressed age at 44.  This vast study, carried out jointly by researchers at Warwick University and Dartmouth College in the US, has concluded that happiness is U-shaped: it peaks when we are 20 and 70, but slumps in the middle.  "You would expect people to get unhappier as they get closer to death," says Professor Andrew Oswald of Warwick University, "but the opposite appears to be the case.  It is a mystery why this happens."

Whooo Hoooooo.... I'm on the way back up ;-)))

Full story here>>[...] original paper here

Bottom Up Nanoassembly; For the First time Researchers create three-dimensional structures using DNA-directed assembly 08-036

MIT Technology Review reports that for the first time in history, researchers have managed to create three-dimensional structures using DNA-directed assembly, realizing the promise and proof-of-concept of building novel materials from the bottom up--atom-by-atom...one of the holy grails of nanotechnology...and about 5-10 years before most technology futurists predicted that this would happen.

...Likely to be voted as one of the top science breakthroughs of 2008, unless they discover life on another planet !!

Researchers from Northwestern and Brookhaven National Laboratory report separately in the journal Nature that they have finally delivered on long-sought promise, using DNA linkers to transform nanoparticles into perfect crystals containing up to one million particles.

The startup company, NanoSphere, has used the technology to develop medical diagnostics that have gained approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

One problem needs to be addressed though:

"The structures are highly porous--10 percent particles and DNA and 90 percent water.  That could hinder applications in which water is undesirable.  Drain out the water, and the crystals collapse.  Gang says that one could stabilize the crystals by filling the lattice with a polymer, but he is also exploring alternate stabilization schemes that would preserve the lattice's open space."

I can think of a few approaches.... :-))

See full story  Researchers create three-dimensional structures using DNA-directed assembly

Historic change in Agricultural feed responsible for skyrocketing heart disease and other inflammatory disorders? 08-035

Are seeds and seed oils responsible for the increased incidence of heart disease and other inflammatory disorders that we see in society today?

Yes, according to science writer Susan Allport in her new book: "The Queen of Fats: Why Omega-3s were removed from our diet and what we can do to replace them," due to be published in paperback in Feb 2008.

Allport concludes:

"Many of the foods we eat every day, including eggs and bacon, used to be full of Omega-3s and other essential nutrients -- when the animals they came from were eating grass, insects, and other green foods.  Now our livestock eat mostly seeds and grains.

Many of the foods we eat every day, including eggs and bacon, used to be full of these essential nutrients -- when the animals they came from were eating grass, insects, and other green foods.  Omega-3s originate in the green leaves of plants (not fish, as many people believe), and they accumulate in animals that eat those leaves, including fish.

Now that our livestock eat mostly seeds and grains, our foods are full of a second family of polyunsaturated fats, omega-6s which are much more prevalent in those parts of plants.  This second family of polyunsaturated fats is also essential for health, but it competes with omega-3s for positions in cell membranes and affects cells in different ways.  Fats in this family are not as dynamic, or speedy, as omega-3s.  They also produce cell messengers called prostaglandins that are far more inflammatory and far more likely to cause thrombosis or blood clotting.

As our reliance on seeds and seed oils has increased since the turn of the last century, so has the incidence of heart disease and other inflammatory disorders.

It may not be practical for us to eat only grass-fed meats and eggs.  But it's also not possible for us to catch, or raise, enough fish to correct this problem.  We can, however, increase our omega-3s by eating small amounts of fish and grass-fed animals and using vegetable oils with a healthier balance of omega-6s to omega-3s."

The Queen of Fats (University of California Press) tells the compelling history of the omega-3 research and is described as a "must read" by physicians and nutritionists.

When is a generalist more important to your organization then a specialist ? 08-034

Every experienced CEO worth his/her salt, will tell you that a good generalist can be gold in an organization, yet many generalists feel isolated in a world full of more and more specialists....(like a GP in a world of medical specialists.)  But generalists are critical in periods of upheaval, chaos and when disruptive innovations threaten to replaces the incumbant technology and social infrastructure. Broadly speaking, generalists are better at higher order cognitive skills and tasks ( such as surfacing and challenging conventional assumptions, spotting early signals of change, pattern recognition, connecting ideas in unrelated disciplines, concept creation, sense-making and sense-communicating, and creating and spotting new opportunity windows then most specialists), who are often still stuck in the dominant, orthodox mind-set and have difficulty envisioning any other worldview...(my observations from the Idea Lab).

Now there is intial scientific proof backing this notion. In nature and as well as the corner office, scientists find that generalists can thrive....and the good ones should be paid more !!!

The assignment of duties in a single cell, ocean life or even a small business does not have to be defined by a division of labor where every individual has a specific role, according to biologists at Ohio State University.

The scientists have designed a mathematical model to describe circumstances that would allow generalists to endure in what is typically expected to be a specialist-only society, according to theory.

Existing biological theories about the division of labor suggest that individual members of a group gravitate to specialization to perform specific tasks toward a common goal.

According to this new model, which tweaks two assumptions of the existing theory, there is a place in small groups for generalists to exist and possibly even to thrive.

Because the model they designed pertains to biological systems with just a few individuals, the researchers caution against reading too much into its potential application to humans.  But in a socially and economically complex world, they admit they find comfort in the model’s implications about humankind nonetheless.

“What this modeling showed me is that there are conditions under which it actually helps to have some generalists, especially for fairly small groups, some individuals that you might think of as Jacks- or Jills-of-all-trades or multitaskers,” said Tom Waite, associate professor of evolution, ecology and organismal biology at Ohio State and co-author of the study.

“You might actually have to pay them more and they might often do the wrong task, but if you don’t have them, this whole notion of specialization leading to greater economic productivity might actually be wrong.”

The research appears online in the Journal of Theoretical Biology.

Waite and doctoral candidate Anthony D’Orazio, lead author of the study, started with an established mathematical model in current biology literature that leads to complete division of labor.  In their design, they relaxed two assumptions, making inefficiency less costly and allowing generalists to make mistakes.

The researchers determined the worth of generalists to small systems by designing mathematical equations and creating a computer program to run the equations with various values for different generalist and specialist behaviors.  They carried the computation out to the point at which the system had completely evolved.

Waite and D’Orazio realized they were wading into treacherous theoretical waters.  The notion of division of labor among humans dates to the Greek philosopher Plato, who argued that societies require specialization to be productive and efficient.  Later intellectuals expressed concern that the inflexibility associated with division of labor would destroy the human spirit.

In ecology, the literature is comparatively thin.  But theoreticians agree that no perfect mathematical model exists, Waite said.  A model is either too broad to provide useful insights for any given system or too specific to apply beyond a single defined system.

“We wanted to define a fair model that isn’t too biased toward one group or one outcome,” D’Orazio said.

D’Orazio initiated the development of a new model with the hopes of determining what he can expect in his study of sea anemones.  He was surprised to find that even using a simple model, he is unable to clarify why these marine animals behave as they do.

Can we apply this concept of incomplete division of labor to humans?  Humans are, after all, animals that might be driven mainly by biological urges.  But the superimposed culture, rules, laws, race, class and gender make it hard to know for sure.

D’Orazio and Waite use a small cookie business to illustrate their findings.  If three individuals work in a group and all are specialists, two members make cookies and the other sells cookies.  If the seller is out sick, the whole operation must shut down under previous assumptions about division of labor.

The business could hire a fourth person who can bake and sell, but that’s an expensive option.  Another possibility is sticking with three employees but training one of them to do two tasks.

“So now you have a generalist,” Waite said.  “You’ve lost something in terms of time and profit initially because you have to invest in training this person.  You might even train all three people.  But if you have even just one generalist, then you’re safeguarded against the possibility that the specialists don’t complement each other.”

For Waite, the findings reinforce his broader world view.  “We should value each other much more.  We should value people who have a diversity of skills and interests.  They might not have really recognizable specific skills but they might be good at doing lots of things,” he said.

For biological purposes, the new model will set a standard for future work, D’Orazio noted.

“We were trying to clarify confusion in the literature.  We’re not saying any system should strive for incomplete division of labor, but that it exists and this is an example of it.”

Full story>>[...]

iPlant Collaborative to Tackle Greater Science Questions > like a Google Nature Map? 08-033

How do you create a "big picture overview " from all the specialized, reductionist, research in any discipline?

The US National Science Foundation (NSF) today announced a $50 million award to a University of Arizona-led team to create the first national cyberinfrastructure center to tackle global "grand challenge" plant biology questions that have great implications on larger questions regarding the environment, agriculture, energy and the very organisms that sustain our existence on earth.

Like no other single research entity, the iPlant Collaborative will provide the capacity to draw upon resources and talent in remote locations and enable plant scientists, computer scientists and information scientists from around the world for the first time ever to collaboratively address questions of global importance and advance all of these fields.  It will bring together and leverage the resources and information generated through the National Plant Genome Initiative, enabling more breadth and depth of research in every aspect of plant science.

"We are confident in the positive returns of this substantive investment in basic research," said NSF Director Arden L. Bement.  "The iPlant Collaborative will harness the best and the brightest scholars and research in plant biology in order to tackle some of the profound issues of our day and for our future.  Challenges that may need plants for solutions include addressing the impacts of climate change, dwindling oil supply, decreasing agricultural land area, increasing population and environmental degradation."

The iPlant center will be located in and administered by the University of Arizona's BIO5 Institute, which was founded to encourage collaboration across scientific disciplines, accelerate the pace of scientific discovery, and develop innovative solutions to society's most complex biological challenges.

"This global center is going to change the way we do science," says UA plant sciences professor and BIO5 member Richard Jorgensen, who is the lead investigator and director of the iPlant Collaborative.

"The iPlant team has a compelling vision for an organization by, for and of the community, that will bring to bear the power of cyberinfrastructure to enable scientists everywhere to take on some of the most important questions in plant science," said Joann Roskoski, executive officer of the NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences.

The cyberinfrastructure and the researchers will rely heavily on computational thinking, a form of problem-solving that assigns computers the jobs they're most efficient at, and in doing so frees up humans to spend more time on the creative tasks that humans do best.  The iPlant cyberinfrastructure will serve as a model for solving problems in fields outside of plant biology too.

"One feature of iPlant that will be developed is the ability to map the full expanse of plant biology research in much the way Google Earth, Microsoft Virtual Earth or Mapquest utilizes mapping technology.  Like users of these applications, users of iPlant may one day be able to "zoom" in and out among various levels of plant biology, from the molecular to the organismic to the ecosystem level.  For example, a researcher might "zoom in" to analyze the carbon fixed, oxygen produced, and water utilized by individual leaves, then "zoom out" to analyze how all of these might effect large-scale changes in ecosystems and how that could in turn affect air quality and climate."

Because collaboration among disciplines is central to iPlant's mission, the cyberinfrastructure also will have a strong networking component to facilitate communication among researchers from different fields.  It will also conduct research on the effectiveness of social networking in iPlant and in the plant and computer and information sciences generally.

All iPlant projects will have K-12, undergraduate and graduate education components as well, which is co-funded by NSF, BIO5 and Science Foundation Arizona.  Students, teachers, and interested laypeople will all have access to iPlant's resources and data, as well as to educational tools designed to help them understand that data and develop inquiry-based learning modules for K through 12, undergraduate, and graduate science education.

The iPlant Collaborative is a five-year project that is potentially renewable for a second five years and a total of $100 million.  This award is greater than three times the size of any other NSF award received in Arizona to date.

Other institutions working with The University of Arizona (UA) include Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Arizona State University, the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, and Purdue University.  UA participants in the iPlant Collaborative include the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences' Department of Plant Sciences, the College of Science's Departments of Computer Science, Mathematics and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, the Eller College of Management's Department of Management Information Systems, the College of Engineering's Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and the Arizona Research Lab's Biocomputing Facility.  The project' board of directors will be chaired by Robert Last, PhD, a Michigan State University professor.

Related Websites iPlant Collaborative: http://iplantcollaborative.org/

Regulation of all sensors, all surveillance ? ...Shades of the USSR? 08-032

Back to the USSR?.....The Village Voice reports this week on a proposal that is being considered by New York City officials to have all environmental monitoring devices registered by the police.

"Richard Falkenrath, the NYPD's deputy commissioner for counterterrorism and Mayor Michael Bloomberg have asked the City Council to pass a law requiring anyone who wants to own a sensor that detects biological, chemical, and radiological hazards needs to get a permit from the police first. " 

Last week, Falkenrath made his case for the new law before the City Council's Public Safety Committee, saying that unless police can determine who gets to look for hazards floating in the air, the city would be paralyzed by fear....(any evidence of this so far ? makes you wonder what NYC has to hide?)

"There are currently no guidelines regulating the private acquisition of biological, chemical, and radiological detectors," warned Falkenrath, adding that this law was suggested by officials within the Department of Homeland Security.  "There are no consistent standards for the type of detectors used, no requirement that they be reported to the police department—or anyone else, for that matter—and no mechanism for coordinating these devices.  .  .  .  Our mutual goal is to prevent false alarms .  .  .  By making sure we know where these detectors are located, and that they conform to standards of quality and reliability." 

Given how important environmental sensors are to all kinds of scientific research, as well as environmental activism (e.g., monitoring of pollutants in low-income neighborhoods), this seems like a pretty extreme move.

One blogger writes:

"Futurists regularly talk about the potential for cheap environmental sensors to serve as tools for sustainable development, more efficient energy use, etc.; I'm not sure how many of us (or how many computer scientists, ecologists, and others) ever thought that it would make sense to have the police "know where these detectors are located, and that they conform to standards of quality and reliability," any more than they would have a compelling interest in making sure all clocks and watches were accurately set."

Academic scientists and researchers are all in shock ! Is the Department of Homeland Security going too far?

So the lesson here is...get your sensors now, while they are freely available.

Thinking About Tomorrow 2018? 08-031

The Wall Street Journal ran a story this week, Thinking About Tomorrow that asks:

"How will technology change the way we shop, learn and entertain ourselves?  How will it change the way we get news, protect our privacy, connect with friends?  We look ahead 10 years, and imagine a whole different world.  Let's get this out of the way first -- in the next 10 years, no one will travel to work by jet pack or have robot maids that serve dinner.  But technology will continue to transform the rituals of everyday life -- sometimes in startling ways...

Full story here >>[...]

Creative and noncreative problem solvers exhibit different patterns of brain activity 08-030

Why do some people solve problems more creatively than others?  Are people who think creatively somehow different from those who tend to think in a more methodical fashion?

These questions are part of a long-standing debate, with some researchers arguing that what we call “creative thought” and “noncreative thought” are not basically different.  If this is the case, then people who are thought of as creative do not really think in a fundamentally different way from those who are thought of as noncreative.  On the other side of this debate, some researchers have argued that creative thought is fundamentally different from other forms of thought.  If this is true, then those who tend to think creatively really are somehow different.

A new study led by John Kounios, professor of psychology at Drexel University and Mark Jung-Beeman of Northwestern University addresses these questions by comparing the brain activity of creative and noncreative problem solvers.  The study published in the journal Neuropsychologia, reveals a distinct pattern of brain activity, even at rest, in people who tend to solve problems with a sudden creative insight -- an “Aha!  Moment” – compared to people who tend to solve problems more methodically.

At the beginning of the study, participants relaxed quietly for seven minutes while their electroencephalograms (EEGs) were recorded to show their brain activity.  The participants were not given any task to perform and told they could think about whatever they wanted.  Later, they were asked to solve a series of anagrams – scrambled letters that can be rearranged to form words [MPXAELE = EXAMPLE].  These can be solved by deliberately and methodically trying out different letter combinations, or they can be solved with a sudden insight or “Aha!” in which the solution pops into awareness.  After each successful solution, participants indicated in which way the solution had come to them.  The participants were then divided into two groups – those who reported solving the problems mostly by sudden insight, and those who reported solving the problems more methodically – and resting-state brain activity for these groups was compared.  As predicted, the two groups displayed strikingly different patterns of brain activity during the resting period at the beginning of the experiment – before they knew they would have to solve problems or even knew what the study was about.

One difference was that the creative solvers exhibited greater activity in several regions of the right hemisphere.  Previous research has suggested that the right hemisphere of the brain plays a special role in solving problems with creative insight, likely due to right-hemisphere involvement in the processing of loose or “remote” associations between the elements of a problem, which is understood to be an important component of creative thought.  The current study shows that greater right-hemisphere activity occurs even during a “resting” state in those with a tendency to solve problems by creative insight.  This finding suggests that even the spontaneous thought of creative individuals, such as in their daydreams, contains more remote associations.

Second, creative and methodical solvers exhibited different activity in areas of the brain that process visual information.  The pattern of “alpha” and “beta” brainwaves in creative solvers was consistent with diffuse rather than focused visual attention.  This may allow creative individuals to broadly sample the environment for experiences that can trigger remote associations to produce an Aha!  Moment.  For example, a glimpse of an advertisement on a billboard or a word spoken in an overheard conversation could spark an association that leads to a solution.  In contrast, the more focused attention of methodical solvers reduces their distractibility, allowing them to effectively solve problems for which the solution strategy is already known, as would be the case for balancing a checkbook or baking a cake using a known recipe.

Thus, the new study shows that basic differences in brain activity between creative and methodical problem solvers exist and are evident even when these individuals are not working on a problem.  According to Kounios, “Problem solving, whether creative or methodical, doesn’t begin from scratch when a person starts to work on a problem.  His or her pre-existing brain-state biases a person to use a creative or a methodical strategy.”

In addition to contributing to current knowledge about the neural basis of creativity, this study suggests the possible development of new brain imaging techniques for assessing potential for creative thought, and for assessing the effectiveness of methods for training individuals to think creatively.

Source: Drexel University

Bacteria convert any organic material into ethanol for under a $1 per gallon 08-029

Coskata, a biofuel startup in Illinois can make ethanol from just about anything organic for less than $1 per gallon, and it wouldn't interfere with food supplies, say company officials.

Coskata, which is backed by General Motors and other investors, uses bacteria to convert almost any organic material, from corn husks (but not the corn itself) to municipal trash, into ethanol.

..a 20% price reduction would make this option look attractive.

see video simulation:

ETA: now

see full story

Cutting caffeine may help control type 2 diabetes 08-028

Daily consumption of caffeine in coffee, tea or soft drinks increases blood sugar levels for people with type 2 diabetes and may undermine efforts to control their disease, say scientists at Duke University Medical Center in the USA.

Researchers used new technology that measured participants’ glucose (sugar) levels on a constant basis throughout the day.  Dr. James Lane, a psychologist at Duke and the lead author of the study, says it represents the first time researchers have been able to track the impact of caffeine consumption as patients go about their normal, everyday lives.

The findings, appearing in the February issue of Diabetes Care, add more weight to a growing body of research suggesting that eliminating caffeine from the diet might be a good way to manage blood sugar levels.

Lane studied 10 patients with established type 2 diabetes and who drank at least two cups of coffee every day and who were trying to manage their disease through diet, exercise and oral medications, but no extra insulin.  Each had a tiny smart glucose monitor embedded under their abdominal skin that continuously monitored their glucose levels over a 72-hour period.

Participants took capsules containing caffeine equal to about four cups of coffee on one day and then identical capsules that contained a placebo on another day.  Everyone had the same nutrition drink for breakfast, but were free to eat whatever they liked for lunch and dinner.

The researchers found that when the participants consumed caffeine, their average daily sugar levels went up 8 per cent.  Caffeine also exaggerated the rise in glucose after meals: increasing by 9 percent after breakfast, 15 percent after lunch and 26 per cent after dinner.

“We’re not sure what it is about caffeine that drives glucose levels up, but we have a couple of theories,” says Lane, who is the lead author of the study.  “It could be that caffeine interferes with the process that moves glucose from the blood and into muscle and other cells in the body where it is used for fuel.  It may also be that caffeine triggers the release of adrenaline – the ‘fight or flight” hormone that we know can also boost sugar levels.”

Either way, he says, the higher sugar levels that result from caffeine are bad news for diabetic patients.

There are no current guidelines suggesting diabetics shouldn’t drink coffee, but Lane says that day may come, if further studies bear out their findings.

“Coffee is such a common drink in our society that we forget that it contains a very powerful drug – caffeine.  Our study suggests that one way to lower blood sugar is to simply quit drinking coffee, or any other caffeinated beverages.  It may not be easy, but it doesn’t cost a dime, and there are no side effects,” Lane says.